Matt

Political Leaning

Recommended Posts

I found out a fun survey that assigns a political ideology to you after completing about some 70 questions. It's quite a rapid and not too thoughtful survey. Give it a try here - 

https://8values.github.io

Do post your results!

Edited by Matt
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gramps said:

The results surprised me as I self identify as a libertarian.

Screenshot_20181226-134148_Chrome.jpg

I cannot personally differentiate between liberalism and liberatarian :P. I find them to be highly same although there are some major dissimilarities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Matt said:

I cannot personally differentiate between liberalism and liberatarian :P. I find them to be highly same although there are some major dissimilarities. 

On an international scale, you are perhaps somewhat right. At least for the US, here are the differences I know of:

Libertarianism is considered by many to be "Classic Liberalism", or what liberalism grew out of. To a libertarian in our country, the most important value is freedom.

Liberalism in the US has become a hodgepodge of several "leftist" ideas. Liberalism places compassion at the heart of everything they do. Their most important value is justice.

Libertarians also consider themselves to be the "true conservatives" of our country, because our country was founded on Classic Liberal ideas (see: the Declaration of Independence), and libertarians want to preserve this "old way of thinking" which centers on life, liberty, and property.

Liberalism suggests that times have changed and that because we no longer live in the 1700's, the idea of "life, liberty, and property" must be updated. Extremely leftist liberals would even argue that "life, liberty, and property" was just another way for the rich white man to enslave others.

Libertarians believe that the economy works best when the government does not get involved. Allow people to freely choose what they buy and sell, from anywhere in the world. Do not utilize central banking. If you are going to utilize central banking, at the very least, make sure the currency is backed by something of value. Make sure the central bank can be audited and that we know what is going on. Make sure interest rates are set by the market, not the central bank. Really, in an ideal libertarian world, there would be no Federal Reserve at all. Most libertarians believe in Austrian Economics.

Liberals believe in Keynesian, or these days more often, New Keynesian, economics. Some extremely leftist liberals believe in Democratic Socialism or some form of Marxism. Liberals believe that FDR was right to institute the New Deal, which they credit for helping to end the Great Depression. They believe sometimes we must bailout large corporations that are in trouble. They believe that a government can not be run like a business, and government spending and borrowing is necessary to revitalize the economy at certain times.

Libertarians believe that taxation is theft.

Liberals believe taxes are necessary and even good, but that the wealthy must be taxed more.

Libertarians believe that, as an extension of their belief that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they do not hurt anyone, people should be able to own any kind of weapon they want.

Liberals believe that gun ownership is often dangerous, and that, at the very least, there must be restrictions.

While libertarians and liberals do find common ground on abortion, gay marriage, criminal justice reform, and immigration, often they support these issues for different reasons. Libertarians support these things because they don't think the government should tell people what to do. Liberals often support these things because they believe very strongly in equality and social justice.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2018 at 8:46 AM, Gramps said:

On an international scale, you are perhaps somewhat right. At least for the US, here are the differences I know of:

Libertarianism is considered by many to be "Classic Liberalism", or what liberalism grew out of. To a libertarian in our country, the most important value is freedom.

Liberalism in the US has become a hodgepodge of several "leftist" ideas. Liberalism places compassion at the heart of everything they do. Their most important value is justice.

Libertarians also consider themselves to be the "true conservatives" of our country, because our country was founded on Classic Liberal ideas (see: the Declaration of Independence), and libertarians want to preserve this "old way of thinking" which centers on life, liberty, and property.

Liberalism suggests that times have changed and that because we no longer live in the 1700's, the idea of "life, liberty, and property" must be updated. Extremely leftist liberals would even argue that "life, liberty, and property" was just another way for the rich white man to enslave others.

Libertarians believe that the economy works best when the government does not get involved. Allow people to freely choose what they buy and sell, from anywhere in the world. Do not utilize central banking. If you are going to utilize central banking, at the very least, make sure the currency is backed by something of value. Make sure the central bank can be audited and that we know what is going on. Make sure interest rates are set by the market, not the central bank. Really, in an ideal libertarian world, there would be no Federal Reserve at all. Most libertarians believe in Austrian Economics.

Liberals believe in Keynesian, or these days more often, New Keynesian, economics. Some extremely leftist liberals believe in Democratic Socialism or some form of Marxism. Liberals believe that FDR was right to institute the New Deal, which they credit for helping to end the Great Depression. They believe sometimes we must bailout large corporations that are in trouble. They believe that a government can not be run like a business, and government spending and borrowing is necessary to revitalize the economy at certain times.

Libertarians believe that taxation is theft.

Liberals believe taxes are necessary and even good, but that the wealthy must be taxed more.

Libertarians believe that, as an extension of their belief that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they do not hurt anyone, people should be able to own any kind of weapon they want.

Liberals believe that gun ownership is often dangerous, and that, at the very least, there must be restrictions.

While libertarians and liberals do find common ground on abortion, gay marriage, criminal justice reform, and immigration, often they support these issues for different reasons. Libertarians support these things because they don't think the government should tell people what to do. Liberals often support these things because they believe very strongly in equality and social justice.

This sums it up pretty well, and is a fair and reasonably unbiased comparison between the two political philosophies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/12/2018 at 8:16 PM, Gramps said:

On an international scale, you are perhaps somewhat right. At least for the US, here are the differences I know of:

Libertarianism is considered by many to be "Classic Liberalism", or what liberalism grew out of. To a libertarian in our country, the most important value is freedom.

Liberalism in the US has become a hodgepodge of several "leftist" ideas. Liberalism places compassion at the heart of everything they do. Their most important value is justice.

Libertarians also consider themselves to be the "true conservatives" of our country, because our country was founded on Classic Liberal ideas (see: the Declaration of Independence), and libertarians want to preserve this "old way of thinking" which centers on life, liberty, and property.

Liberalism suggests that times have changed and that because we no longer live in the 1700's, the idea of "life, liberty, and property" must be updated. Extremely leftist liberals would even argue that "life, liberty, and property" was just another way for the rich white man to enslave others.

Libertarians believe that the economy works best when the government does not get involved. Allow people to freely choose what they buy and sell, from anywhere in the world. Do not utilize central banking. If you are going to utilize central banking, at the very least, make sure the currency is backed by something of value. Make sure the central bank can be audited and that we know what is going on. Make sure interest rates are set by the market, not the central bank. Really, in an ideal libertarian world, there would be no Federal Reserve at all. Most libertarians believe in Austrian Economics.

Liberals believe in Keynesian, or these days more often, New Keynesian, economics. Some extremely leftist liberals believe in Democratic Socialism or some form of Marxism. Liberals believe that FDR was right to institute the New Deal, which they credit for helping to end the Great Depression. They believe sometimes we must bailout large corporations that are in trouble. They believe that a government can not be run like a business, and government spending and borrowing is necessary to revitalize the economy at certain times.

Libertarians believe that taxation is theft.

Liberals believe taxes are necessary and even good, but that the wealthy must be taxed more.

Libertarians believe that, as an extension of their belief that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they do not hurt anyone, people should be able to own any kind of weapon they want.

Liberals believe that gun ownership is often dangerous, and that, at the very least, there must be restrictions.

While libertarians and liberals do find common ground on abortion, gay marriage, criminal justice reform, and immigration, often they support these issues for different reasons. Libertarians support these things because they don't think the government should tell people what to do. Liberals often support these things because they believe very strongly in equality and social justice.

Why is taxation considered a theft? Government cannot simply rely on publicly funded money. 

Edited by Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Matt said:

Why is taxation considered a theft? Government cannot simply rely on publicly funded money. 

Regardless of rather government needs taxes to function or not, taxation still matches the definition of theft.

 

Definition of theft 

 

1a: the act of stealingspecifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8values.png

Not too surprised, I've taken multiple quizzes like this one before. I wouldn't self-identify as socialist to the extent that this says, but the rest is pretty accurate. My favourite political ideology quiz would probably be the political sextant quiz, though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Agent P said:

8values.png

Not too surprised, I've taken multiple quizzes like this one before. I wouldn't self-identify as socialist to the extent that this says, but the rest is pretty accurate. My favourite political ideology quiz would probably be the political sextant quiz, though.

I never knew there were so many identities also. 

 

13 hours ago, Gramps said:

Regardless of rather government needs taxes to function or not, taxation still matches the definition of theft.

 

Definition of theft 

 

1a: the act of stealingspecifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

No, I disagree to a certain extent. Theft is the act of stealing without the consent of an individual or group. 

Tax is a kind of mutual agreement between the citizens and government for that government provides many public facilities in form of welfare programs, military protection etc. It's a trade or exchange. 

Screenshot_2018-12-30-12-13-12.png

Screenshot_2018-12-30-12-13-38.png

The government does not collect tax without the consent of citizens. Either the citizens agree to pay taxes or does not. Although, some actions might be taken against the citizens if they choose the later. 

Edited by Matt
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Matt: If the only reason I pay taxes is because I know that if I don't I'll be put in jail, I never consented to pay taxes. I was coerced. I'd personally prefer a society with minimum taxes and minimum restrictions on the free market.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Gramps said:

@Matt: If the only reason I pay taxes is because I know that if I don't I'll be put in jail, I never consented to pay taxes. I was coerced. I'd personally prefer a society with minimum taxes and minimum restrictions on the free market.

Yes. I understand what you mean to say but it is necessary that the government interfere in the economy time to time in order to keep it stable. For example, in my country, government at times needs to release money from it's foreign reserves to keep the market stable. Sometimes, it even needs to restrict the flow of agrarian products.

Taxes are neccesary for public utilities like roads etc that we have no choice but to use. They cannot be trusted with free market. The thing is you do not any choice because this is the least authority that the state possesses and should possess.

 

Edited by Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moved this topic to our new Politics forum. :grant:

1 hour ago, Matt said:

Yes. I understand what you mean to say but it is necessary that the government interfere in the economy time to time in order to keep it stable. For example, in my country, government at times needs to release money from it's foreign reserves to keep the market stable. Sometimes, it even needs to restrict the flow of agrarian products.

Taxes are neccesary for public utilities like roads etc that we have no choice but to use. They cannot be trusted with free market. The thing is you do not any choice because this is the least authority that the state possesses and should possess.

 

You tackled a few things here.

1. In regards to currency reserves, I would say these things ultimately lead to inflation. I’d like to see countries switch back to the gold standard.

2. How does restricting trade help anyone?

3. Even if it was necessary for the government to intervene, that does not make taxation anything other than theft. Unless I willingly give over my money, it is theft, regardless of rather they use the stolen money to help me or not.

4. Most public utilities can be privatized. Toll roads are great examples.

5. I believe we would be better off with no state compared to the kind of states we have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Gramps said:

Moved this topic to our new Politics forum. :grant:

You tackled a few things here.

1. In regards to currency reserves, I would say these things ultimately lead to inflation. I’d like to see countries switch back to the gold standard.

2. How does restricting trade help anyone?

3. Even if it was necessary for the government to intervene, that does not make taxation anything other than theft. Unless I willingly give over my money, it is theft, regardless of rather they use the stolen money to help me or not.

4. Most public utilities can be privatized. Toll roads are great examples.

5. I believe we would be better off with no state compared to the kind of states we have now.

1. You are right. Releasing foreign exchange reserves does increase inflation but it is necessary that forex reserves are used at the right time to keep the exchange rates at check. In the end, it does lead to inflation indefinitely.

But the disadvantage with gold standards is that the health and size of the resourcefulness of a country is largely affected by the gold and not by businesses and other checks. The growth of a country discourages the growth of another country with gold standards far more than foreign reserves.

2. Trade restrictions and barriers protects infant industries. This helps domestic industries and good producers.

3. Taxation is good. The government cannot function without it. As long as you are living in borders of a country and are it's citizen, you are subject to the regulations of the state.

4. Not all public utilities cannot privatized. Also privatization leads to exploitation in most of the cases, most of the firms playing for higher prices. They all will seek to set higher prices. Some utilities need to be publicly owned. 

5. Without a state, it will all be a chaos. Government has a major role in implementing regulations and discipline among the people. Without a state, the society will divide itself among smaller sections and create mini-governments of their own and engage in hostile confrontations and possibly even more.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Matt said:

No, I disagree to a certain extent. Theft is the act of stealing without the consent of an individual or group. 

Tax is a kind of mutual agreement between the citizens and government for that government provides many public facilities in form of welfare programs, military protection etc. It's a trade or exchange. 

The government does not collect tax without the consent of citizens. Either the citizens agree to pay taxes or does not. Although, some actions might be taken against the citizens if they choose the later. 

 

I do agree that taxes are important, but technically, it does fit the definition of theft. Citizens don't have a say in it. It's simply wrong to say that the government does not collect tax without the consent of citizens. If they choose to not pay taxes, actions will be taken against them (like you said). Hence, it's not free will. Free will is an unaffected genuine decision. The agreement is not mutual, it's a law that everyone has to follow.

I personally think taxes are good as long as the services provided by the government are good enough. I'd happily pay a high-rate tax for services like free healthcare, paid vacations, unemployment benefits, etc. Sweden, for example, has these things. But things are a lot more complicated in a developing and highly populated country like our India.

13 hours ago, Matt said:

Trade restrictions and barriers protects infant industries. This helps domestic industries and good producers.

I assume you're talking about international trade restrictions here for the purpose of protecting local industries. Yes, it is desirable to a certain extent, especially if the market is an infant one. But other than that, it prevents the local producers from exposure and competition, and ultimately most likely will lead to a lack of quality as compared to their foreign competitors. The party that matters the most in an economy is the consumer. International trade provides them with more options and variety. If the competition gets intense enough, it also leads to cheaper pricing. Free trade and good competition are vital to a healthy economy. Also, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "good producers" here.

Here's me:

image.png 

I don't think it describes me very well, but it's close. 

Edited by AJ Mysterio
The image didn't appear earlier, had to fix it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AJ Mysterio said:

I assume you're talking about international trade restrictions here for the purpose of protecting local industries. Yes, it is desirable to a certain extent, especially if the market is an infant one. But other than that, it prevents the local producers from exposure and competition, and ultimately most likely will lead to a lack of quality as compared to their foreign competitors. The party that matters the most in an economy is the consumer. International trade provides them with more options and variety. If the competition gets intense enough, it also leads to cheaper pricing. Free trade and good competition are vital to a healthy economy. Also, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "good producers" here.

1 hour ago, AJ Mysterio said:

 

Yes, trade restrictions are only advantageous up to a certain limit. That's why the government only sometimes put trade restrictions and barriers. International market are giants as compared to our small scale industries and there's a need to protect our infant industries against them at times of requirement. 

1 hour ago, AJ Mysterio said:

I do agree that taxes are important, but technically, it does fit the definition of theft. Citizens don't have a say in it. It's simply wrong to say that the government does not collect tax without the consent of citizens. If they choose to not pay taxes, actions will be taken against them (like you said). Hence, it's not free will. Free will is an unaffected genuine decision. The agreement is not mutual, it's a law that everyone has to follow.

I personally think taxes are good as long as the services provided by the government are good enough. I'd happily pay a high-rate tax for services like free healthcare, paid vacations, unemployment benefits, etc. Sweden, for example, has these things. But things are a lot more complicated in a developing and highly populated country like our India.

It is a part of a social contract that you have to accept given no choice. We use public utilities like roads etc. all the time and it is important that we pay taxes for it. These utilities cannot be trusted with privatization since there are chances of exploitation, toxic monopoly and ill coordination between the firms. 

As long as we are living within the borders of the state, we are a subject to it's regulation and laws. Tax is indeed a law, but it serves for our own good uses. Military protection, police, justice etc. are the basics that we reply upon. The thing is that we don't have a choice for paying taxes because we all enjoy the utilities that are given to us by the government. Even if we were a given a choice to pay taxes, most of the people won't. 

While in India, the amount of money that is being spent in social welfare programs is massive.  We are spending way too much in welfare programs that are not even working. Spending lakhs of crores each year just on providing subsidies. 

Edited by Matt
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Screenshot_20190107-025617_Firefox.jpg

Kinda a centrist then I'd say, like I don't have any side I'm on to the extreme. Plus, many of the questions here are based on how you prioritise problems, and my priorities change based on the new information I get. So I'd probably fluctuate a little in every category towards the other end, so centrist seems apt.

Although I think the only relevant questions of the day are globalism vs nationalism (political) and free speech vs state control (social)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2018 at 10:28 AM, Matt said:

1. You are right. Releasing foreign exchange reserves does increase inflation but it is necessary that forex reserves are used at the right time to keep the exchange rates at check. In the end, it does lead to inflation indefinitely.

But the disadvantage with gold standards is that the health and size of the resourcefulness of a country is largely affected by the gold and not by businesses and other checks. The growth of a country discourages the growth of another country with gold standards far more than foreign reserves.

2. Trade restrictions and barriers protects infant industries. This helps domestic industries and good producers.

3. Taxation is good. The government cannot function without it. As long as you are living in borders of a country and are it's citizen, you are subject to the regulations of the state.

4. Not all public utilities cannot privatized. Also privatization leads to exploitation in most of the cases, most of the firms playing for higher prices. They all will seek to set higher prices. Some utilities need to be publicly owned. 

5. Without a state, it will all be a chaos. Government has a major role in implementing regulations and discipline among the people. Without a state, the society will divide itself among smaller sections and create mini-governments of their own and engage in hostile confrontations and possibly even more.

 

1. Still working on a response to this one because you made a really good point that has me re-evaluating the gold standard.

2. If the infant industry is truly providing value to the market, the consumer will support it. Why artificially pick and choose which industries grow?

3. Taxation is only good if you believe the government is mostly good. If you believe most things the government does are bad, then it stands to reason you will be opposed to taxation.

4. Which public utilities can not be privatized? In the event of companies colluding to hike prices, there will always be one or two who offer insanely low prices to win over consumers. Consumers have the ultimate vote with their wallet. Markets balance themselves out when you don't place strenuous regulations on them.

5. I didn't say I advocate for anarchy. I merely said it would be better than the current system of state overreach. My ideal system is a minimalist state that let's people do whatever they want as long as they are peaceful and do not harm others or destroy property.

However; your statement assumes the dissolution of businesses. Without a state, business would still provide stability. Private security forces working for corporations could maintain law and order. It is not an ideal system but I believe it would be better than a system where big brother is always watching you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8values.PNG

Looking back on this randomly i think my traditional part was too high. I'm all for progress. I guess tradition was so high cuz i answered a lot of questions like a Christian should. I'd say it should be moderate but with a slight lean to tradition. Like 55/45. I'd say everything else is fairly accurate. Well, guess i'm a little too authoritarian lol i guess it's just cuz i'm somebody who genuinely cares about other people and am concerned about people's safety and well-being, to the point that sometimes i may think i may know what's best for some people, but i guess that isn't the case always. I'm not somebody who forces anything on anybody

Edited by Quack
Added 'lil rebuttal :33
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Agent P said:

We're polar opposites lmao

But still beeeeeeeeeest friends :3

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Matt said:

Someone says hi

  Reveal hidden contents

images (5).jpeg

 

*Bad Boys by Bob Marley plays in background*

Edited by Quack
capitalization
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2019 at 8:49 PM, Gramps said:

1. Still working on a response to this one because you made a really good point that has me re-evaluating the gold standard.

2. If the infant industry is truly providing value to the market, the consumer will support it. Why artificially pick and choose which industries grow?

3. Taxation is only good if you believe the government is mostly good. If you believe most things the government does are bad, then it stands to reason you will be opposed to taxation.

4. Which public utilities can not be privatized? In the event of companies colluding to hike prices, there will always be one or two who offer insanely low prices to win over consumers. Consumers have the ultimate vote with their wallet. Markets balance themselves out when you don't place strenuous regulations on them.

5. I didn't say I advocate for anarchy. I merely said it would be better than the current system of state overreach. My ideal system is a minimalist state that let's people do whatever they want as long as they are peaceful and do not harm others or destroy property.

However; your statement assumes the dissolution of businesses. Without a state, business would still provide stability. Private security forces working for corporations could maintain law and order. It is not an ideal system but I believe it would be better than a system where big brother is always watching you.

1. I am not in favour of trade barriers. I don't like the idea as I consider it unfair but they are still there because it is necessary that we encourage our small scale industries and protect them. We cannot simply let our money flow out of the country to the pockets of huge international firms. It never works I guess but it's still there. 

2. If taxation is considered theft by one then profit should also be simply considered as exploitation. At least that's what Marxists do, which I am thankfully not. 

Karl Marx argued that capitalism at it's crudest means paying the worker a price for his labour while selling it at much higher price. Profit is a fancy term for exploitation according to Marx. How do you consider profit not exploitation while considering that taxation is theft? (Marx advocated for both. I sincerely disagree with Marx in both the cases) 

3. Almost every public utility can be privatized but not all simultaneously. The reasons is toxic monopoly. What are the chances that there will be a firm providing utilities at much lower prices than others? Markets have a weird way of screwing up themselves every time with or without government surveillance. The company offering lower prices will often be suppressed by bigger ones. Big companies dominate the market, suffocating smaller ones. I'd rather pay tax than paying for evey single utility that is not set in the interests of citizens but only in favour of crony capitalists.

4. I know you do not advocate for anarchy. Anyone in a right state of mind would not. Also, my statement does not assume dissolution of business. What is a modern society with business? Modern day society rests upon the pillars of institutions like democracy, businesses etc. 

But, private security forces maintaining law and other is the single most worst thing I can think of. It is better to have no law and order then having private armies regulating them. Every corporation have different set of law, making the it the worst possible scenario. I do rather have heavy government surveillance in the name of law and order than corporations maintaining law and order. 

 

Edited by Matt
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now